Woman marry her rapist

[grace24]

I'd agree consent is implied. They had to be found out.

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

The penalty for premarital sex was pay the dowry and lifelong obligation.

Rape is consent? Deut 22 says rape. What does they both had to be found do anything with rape? A rape is a rape agree?

 

[grace24]

The Jews were slaves of the Egyptians. The Egyptians could take whatever they'd like to, incluidng their lives. They rampently killed the Jews' children simple because the Jews were over-populated. It's not surprised that they could rape the Jews.

If the rapist is an Egyptian, they can do nothing. If the rapist is a Jew, they can do nothing either. They don't have the right to punish their masters' properties. So the best bet is that they will hide their daughters from any men. If this measure failed, they will have to establish a negotiation between the 2 families to settle it down, including that demanding the rapist to take a life time responsibility.

That's force. Are you saying it is morally right to force marriage?

 

[ViaCrucis]

We're talking about a society where women were often seen as little more than chattel, property. An unmarried woman who was not a virgin was effectively seen as used goods, who would buy a beat up lemon of a car?

Now, that's not my opinion on women, I'm saying that's effectively the cultural view of the times.

To force the rapist to marry his victim meant that the victim would be taken care of financially--she'd have a roof over her head, food in her belly, etc. Because this was the obligation of the husband, and to fail at this duty was a serious offense.

We read it today as a horrible punishment toward an innocent victim, but 3,000 years ago it was seen as an attempt to set to rights a terrible wrong committed by the rapist. Oddly enough, it was a means of ensuring the victim would be cared for, to keep her part of society and the community so that she wouldn't have to fend for herself--again, in a society where women had exceptionally little rights in and of themselves.

We may deem this barbaric by our standards, but read it in the context of the times. We may wonder why God gave Israel commandments that seem archaic, antiquated, and even barbaric; but in truth, the standards God expects of the Israelites is to be a people far better than what the other tribes and nations were doing at the time.

It's also important to remember that the Torah wasn't given as a universal code of law for the entire human population, but was given to a specific people: The Jewish people, to govern their lives in the Land as God's covenant nation. Commandments such as this one only really make sense in the context of a people in the ancient near east; it's not a universal principle of moral law for all time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The trouble isn't the meaning of the term "seizes/rapes." The trouble is the term "marry." In most ancient cultures (and many contemporary ones) marriage is a legal obligation for provision. It doesn't have any connotation of romantic relationship. The idea is to make the rapist provide for the woman in a culture where her sexual violation, consensual or not, forever shames her.

 

[grace24]

So are we saying when she is rape the man have to marry her yes?

Morally right?

 

[grace24]

bump

 

[Standing Up]

Rape is consent? Deut 22 says rape. What does they both had to be found do anything with rape? A rape is a rape agree?

You're still confusing the issues in the verses in Deut 22 between implied consent and rape. They are not the same.

If a woman is "raped" in the city, but doesn't cry out, the implication is they didn't want to get caught (implied consent). They are both guilty when found out and both were to be stoned. (The townspeople wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, but they were also supposed to stone the man. Jesus wrote in the dirt.)

If a woman is raped in the country, there's no one to hear her, so the implication when they're found out is only he is guilty.

If you "play around" (no yelling out) prior to marriage and are found out, you pay the dowry and get married. The implication is it is consensual.

It's not the city or countryside per se, it's not the betrothal status alone, it's her ability to be heard, to protest. Did she fight, cry out, yell, struggle? Or was she a participant? It's a tough question to easily answer at times. The 'cry out' is one principle to determine consent (guilt/innocence). Rape was punishable by death, regardless of the woman's status.

 

[Lysimachus]

Rape is consent? Deut 22 says rape. What does they both had to be found do anything with rape? A rape is a rape agree?

You came here to get answers to how to understand the Bible better. Or are you just pretending to be open, but really are an atheist in disguise?

You apparently did not read the article/link that was given you, for that article completely revealed the meaning of the original Hebrew language being employed, and rape is unequivocally not implied with the Hebrew word that is translated as "seized". In case you missed it, go back and read it.

 

[grace24]

You're still confusing the issues in the verses in Deut 22 between implied consent and rape. They are not the same.

If a woman is "raped" in the city, but doesn't cry out, the implication is they didn't want to get caught (implied consent). They are both guilty when found out and both were to be stoned. (The townspeople wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, but they were also supposed to stone the man. Jesus wrote in the dirt.)

If a woman is raped in the country, there's no one to hear her, so the implication when they're found out is only he is guilty.

If you "play around" (no yelling out) prior to marriage and are found out, you pay the dowry and get married. The implication is it is consensual.

It's not the city or countryside per se, it's not the betrothal status alone, it's her ability to be heard, to protest. Did she fight, cry out, yell, struggle? Or was she a participant? It's a tough question to easily answer at times. The 'cry out' is one principle to determine consent (guilt/innocence). Rape was punishable by death, regardless of the woman's status.

I know that Stand Up. But in Deut 22 it says rape, and you're telling it is consent? I asked is rape consent? You thought I meant rape is consent. I never say that or implied that to be the case.

Deut 22:28 In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out,

Deut 22:29 the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.

The NIV says 'rapes'. Now where do you get consent from? If it was consent between the two, then the word 'rape' shouldn't even be there. Rape is not consent. You get what I'm saying? or am I mistaken? I hope I am.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So are we saying when she is rape the man have to marry her yes?

Morally right?

Legally under Torah? Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[x141]

De 22:28 In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, 29 the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.

The key to understanding of this passge is in the fifty silver shekels and speaks of the process of time and the division between the seed of a serpent and the seed of Abraham according to the feasts that lay out the creative days, and the coming out of something by the coming into something. It is about the reality of the truth or the process of the revealing of the son or the Christ in us.

 

[Standing Up]

I know that Stand Up. But in Deut 22 it says rape, and you're telling it is consent? I asked is rape consent? You thought I meant rape is consent. I never say that or implied that to be the case.

Deut 22:28 In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out,

Deut 22:29 the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.

The NIV says 'rapes'. Now where do you get consent from? If it was consent between the two, then the word 'rape' shouldn't even be there. Rape is not consent. You get what I'm saying? or am I mistaken? I hope I am.

Aside from the context and the words used in Deut 22 that has been shown to you, there is the parallel of Deut 22:28 at Ex. 22:16

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

Consensual. Not rape. Two different scenarios and results.

 

[grace24]

Aside from the context and the words used in Deut 22 that has been shown to you, there is the parallel of Deut 22:28 at Ex. 22:16

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

Consensual. Not rape. Two different scenarios and results.

I have pointed that out to the atheist. It's not working. Seduces is not rape. Two different meaning. Right now, I may need to understand the meaning of the Hebrew so I can better understand the passage in Deut more better. Absorbing all the information at once takes a while.

 

[grace24]

Legally under Torah? Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

You know if you say that, then you are admitting that it was morally right to force marriage. Since it is no longer true today, are you saying morality has changed? Because this is one of the argument raised by atheist - to disprove the objective morality held by Christians.

 

[Eddie L]

There is rape here.

Due 25:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

She is force here.

Due 25:29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I don't know how you could read the text and said it's not a rape and force. 25 states that the rapist must die for raping her because she has screamed. In 28, is that consensual sex or not? Well it clearly says rape. Is rape consensual? NO.

We need to understand the context and purpose of marriage before our culture adopted birth control. If a man raped a woman in those times, that woman would not have been able to marry, because in that culture the person you have sex with is the one you are married to. The Law essentially is telling all men "You can't go around raping women. You'll be responsible for them afterward."

This law PROTECTED women. It made sure that their virginity was taken by the man who would provide security for them for the rest of their lives. It prevented men from taking away the future of women.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You know if you say that, then you are admitting that it was morally right to force marriage. Since it is no longer true today, are you saying morality has changed? Because this is one of the argument raised by atheist - to disprove the objective morality held by Christians.

The rapist was under a moral compunction to care for the needs of his victim for the rest of her life. Under the system of law which is the Torah, which again is not a compendium of universal moral principles, but a set of instructions for the Israelites. In this sense forcing the rapist to make sure that his victim would always be taken care of financially was a form of just compensation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You know if you say that, then you are admitting that it was morally right to force marriage. Since it is no longer true today, are you saying morality has changed? Because this is one of the argument raised by atheist - to disprove the objective morality held by Christians.

The rapist was under a moral compunction to care for the needs of his victim for the rest of her life. Under the system of law which is the Torah, which again is not a compendium of universal moral principles, but a set of instructions for the Israelites. In this sense forcing the rapist to make sure that his victim would always be taken care of financially was a form of just compensation.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. Moreover, the point of saying that it is legally obligatory under Torah is a way of saying that it is not necessarily true morally under natural law. The obligations of the Torah reflect natural law for the particular time and culture of ancient Israel, in which raped women were shamed regardless of consent and marriage was more a legal means of social provision (and familial prestige) rather than an expression on devoted romantic love. The natural law this reflects is that we should protect the less fortunate.